Recycling Benefits Whom?

I am merely asking all great ATS contributors to weigh in so I can become enlightened to a quandry I have had for a few months now. I have not been able to find any credible information about recycling and the companies that use recyclable materials and such but I am going to lay it out as I see it.

I totally agree that recycling materials benefits the Earth's deconstruction and pillaging of materials by man, however, who does it actually benefit in the end?

Sure we can all lend a hand in recycling paper, plastic, metal, etc, but where is the money going? The recycling plant is handed materials for free, then breaking them down to maleable forms and selling it to corporations cheap since they didn't have to go out and mine them themself, and in turn remaking products out of them. However, prices continue to increase, at least not decrease, on products that use recyclable materials.

The recycling plant is literally being handed free product and making money off it, and this has not been shown to be reintroduced into communities as they are private coorporations fro what I can tell. Let alone there are several states that charge you a nickel for every can of soda, beer, etc, extra just to give you an incentive to return them to get your 5 cents back per can, yet prices don't decrease on the product within the can while the can is literally free to them.

So what I ask you, is there a scam within the recycling industry? Why wouldn't they pay YOU for every ounce of material you give them, since it is much easier to just throw everything in the same can and let it go to the dump? Shouldn't recycling centers be responsible for planting trees and such with the profits they acrue since it is "good for the Earth" to recycle? If everyone stopped recycling, would prices increase? Why aren't recycling opperations digging through landfills for materials? I believe it would be less cost effective to do so (even though many recycling plants and trash services are one in the same), therefor, a money game by a corporation. Yet I still do recycle as much as I can, it just seems to not do any good to the people that do.

In MA when you recycle a can you get 5c. Except, you don't, because you are charged this 5c at time of purchase. So People think they are being paid for the can, when in reality they are simply getting back the money they already spent.

Well, other than plastics, where I live I take all my aluminum (3 full 40gal bags) for almost $100.
I have people haul away all the cardboard at the designated recycling spot for cardboard on my property (700+ storage units), and these people make a living doing that with cardboard.
I took in a Full size brass headboard a few years ago, and in return received over $85.
And have you seen the price for copper?!
I.E. - the materials are not "free", even ( & especially perhaps?) if the recycling program is run by your municipality.
Kindest,
DD

You didn't think they were doing it out of any sense of environmental responsibility or, dare I say, conscience, did you?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

As what what I stated in the OP

Let alone there are several states that charge you a nickel for every can of soda, beer, etc, extra just to give you an incentive to return them to get your 5 cents back per can.

You pay an extra in MA for what you could get in a neighboring state without this program in order to just get your money back in the end by recycling.

So this scheme is practically forcing you to recycle aluminum in order to save about a dollar for every case of whatever you buy. So, it is you that get's charged extra to buy something and it is also you that get's charged to save it, pur out excess, makesure their not smashed, go through cans to make sure they are returnable, etc, and return it in order to get your money back, thus coming out ecen after hauling a tax with you.

For exaple. I live in NE, here we do not tax cans, yet in IA, across the river they do. NE often recieves cans with the labeled refund marks on the top so if I were to save all the ones that list the refund at the top I could drive them over to IA and make money off of the cans, yet the time and gas kind of depletes the objective unless it is a big load (Seinfeld episode did this). So If the can did not have the markings I would get nothing, as they were meant for NE, but if they were IA cans but ended up in NE (which they often do) I could save them and profit off of them since I didn't pay the 5 cent tax to begin with, but they wo't accept smashed cans (scam). Also, just to make my point clear, no cans without the markings will get you 5 cents back, they have to have the states and prices on the top, and if you live in one of those states you know what I mean, so it is a tax, and not recycling.

a reply to: NthOther

That's what I am asking. Why would they? What company does anything for the better of the Earth and people unless it gives them and endless supply of money? It benefits the corporations and recycling companies more than it benefits laypersons. Has deforestation stopped? Has plastic production stopped (from oil)? NO, it hasn't, yet there are enough materials in landfills that could be mined in order to, and we have to hand them to recycling centers in order for them to care, because it is much easier that way and free and bundled, besides the 10 per hour it costs to man the crews to get it in giant bins.

If recycling helped as much as it proclais to, why aren't forests being restored due to less need for the materials? Think about every magazine and letter and office memos and newspapers printed every year. Recycle those that still exist everywhere, in dumps, on the streets, etc, and there would be no need to cut down trees to get more paper, yet they still do.

And if your post was sarcastic...and after a reread it seems so. But, No I didn't think it was out of good conscience, which was why I made this post.

Recycling has been lauded for decades as a way to give back, but to whom is what I am really asking.

originally posted by: iDopeNE often recieves cans with the labeled refund marks on the top so if I were to save all the ones that list the refund at the top I could drive them over to IA and make money off of the cans, yet the time and gas kind of depletes the objective unless it is a big load (Seinfeld episode did this).

I save mine for my parents. They bring them back to MA and make some money. They are doing the driving anyways so no extra cost.

originally posted by: ISeeTheFnords
Well, other than plastics, where I live I take all my aluminum (3 full 40gal bags) for almost $100.
I have people haul away all the cardboard at the designated recycling spot for cardboard on my property (700+ storage units), and these people make a living doing that with cardboard.
I took in a Full size brass headboard a few years ago, and in return received over $85.
And have you seen the price for copper?!
I.E. - the materials are not "free", even ( & especially perhaps?) if the recycling program is run by your municipality.
Kindest,
DD

IMHO, all of those materials get taxed before they are even shipped to consumers. We pay extra for copper so it can get returned for what seems a profit but it is not if it were your own to begin with, we pay extra for it and it is worth less on resale. I know copper is worth good money but only in large sums or weight. That is why houses and businesses get their wires and electronics stolen, stripped and sold.

Many states do not have recycling for money programs, if I could make money off of cardboard without driving 100 miles I would. But it also inhibits crime by paying for these materials, such as copper and brass.

originally posted by: iDope

What company does anything for the better of the Earth and people unless it gives them and endless supply of money?

None. And/or government (as if there's a difference).

If recycling helped as much as it proclais to, why aren't forests being restored due to less need for the materials?

In a static population, they would be. But the global population is continuing to explode. Recycling "helps", but only by delaying the inevitable and (in many ways) prolonging the agony.

The problem is simple: too many people want too much stuff. You either have to reduce the number of people (Guidestone-style), or reduce the desire for stuff.

The latter requires a serious and honest self-examination of one's values and his/her relationship with the cosmos, which few people are willing to do in a materialist society. Recycling can you make you feel like you're doing you're part, but it's really much, much bigger than bottles and cans.

And if your post was sarcastic...and after a reread it seems so. But, No I didn't think it was out of good conscience, which was why I made this post.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That is totally understandable, but the money they are making off of those cans were taxed prior to buying them. Thus, whomever bought the cans from the store was paying the extra 5-10 cents per can to begin with and when they are resold back to the store that accpets them, gives that money back. So the producer is taxing the consumer for using aluminum, recieving that aluminum back, melting it down for new cans, and not passing the savings on to you.

Go to a state that doesn't pay you for cans, maybe a dollar per several pounds of empty cans, and they sell all soda and beer cheaper than the other states that do pay, that is where the tax is in place.

If they really cared about all cans they would accept any can, not just the ones with the state markings on the brim, they would pay you for every single one. but the ones with the state markings tax you the same you would get in return for them. therefore, it is a money scheme.

a reply to: iDope

The problem is not recycling, the problem is the design of social demands and the deliberate cheap shoddy goods that designed to keep people spending, spending and spending as a means of keeping them broke.
Fashion in form clothes, colours, construction types. Even houses change design, construction and appearance these days which makes them fashion items. its easy to tell what age a house is now just by looking at it.

I could go on about the poor quality of goods that are designed to quickly wear out, break or fail for a thousand different reasons. Tools that look great and comfortable to use but are nothing but rubbish.

Then there is the more subtle form of deliberate wastage and built in redundancy. One example, the Australian auto motive industry claims hundreds of millions of corporate welfare every few years because they reckon the Australian market is too small but this does not stop all 3 of them from all having different different wheel rim sizes when they could easily agree on standard size, configuration and engineering.

Again. I could go on but I think you get the drift. The bottom line here is that I think this deliberate inconsistency, waste and redundancy is going to be used as an argument for population reduction.

I always have a full bin of recycled waste each week. If I didn't recycle it , it would go in the waste bin and I'd struggle to find room for both. So for me it saves space and saves the bin men having to come out twice a week instead of once. Cuts down their work by half the fumes from their vans in half, better all round. I don't have to, no one forces me to. It just makes sense. Even pigs clean out their own pens regularly

a reply to: iDope

You already know the bottom line is the only benefactor in these little enterprises ...... like the carbon tax here,it has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with profit......

It wold be great if the recycling plants ran on something other than fossil fuels....

a reply to: iDope

you're looking at recycling from the wrong end of the telescope.
In the US and other modern countries that create a lot of trash, you will usually literally pay one way or another for that trash to be removed from your property and deposited or recycled elsewhere.

If your trash did not get removed on a regular basis, you would eventually be up to your arm pits in it. That is why you PAY to have it removed. Other trash or discards you may simply give away if it has some use for some element of society, but by and large, you can't have it accumulate forever.

Why should you care that plastic bottles that you isolate and place on the curb with papers next to the less desirable trash is taken to a place where the materials are deconstructed and used to make marketable products that you can and maybe will buy. In addition to your wrong-end-of-the-telescope view on this, your view is fogged.

originally posted by: CretumOrbis
a reply to: iDope

You really are too obvious, you should try to hide that cape of yours.

Rush Limbaugh. Aristotle. Green tree river. Phage. Temudjin. GreenIrish. Astrocyte. LDragonFire. iDope.

What are you suggesting in this post? Kinda went over my head, can you explain?

a reply to: bananashooter

I've got a lot of very angry people in my head and it's hard to deal with it when I get tired.

I've been advised to stick to my own thread to avoid any other such spillages.

Sorry for any inconvenience.

a reply to: CretumOrbis

That did not answer my question, but okay, feel better.

a reply to: iDope

If you agree that recycling protects the earth then by default it benefits all beings on teh earth.

Not only does recycling help slow the consumption of Earth's natural resources, but as an industry (since that seems to be your angle) it provides employment. Jobs. Jobs which would not otherwise exist.

This is my main problem with the annoying climate change arguments. Whether we do or don't know what impact we have on the climate, what the hell does it hurt to be proactive and birth an industry of JOBS related to climate change solutions, other than an apparent ego hit to someone's ideology?

With recycling, we know it slows the process down as far as deforestation and mining. It doesn't stop it, but it helps. And people make money. That's not a bad thing.